FinShaggy's First CFL based grow

tip top toker

tip top toker

Well-Known Member
Finshaggy said:
Where do you see a HPS in these videos??

And I still have another CFL to get, after someone suggested something about light I realized that if I was going to veg 3-4 plants while I flower 1-2 I will need another CFL.

So I will have... 125 + 125 + 125 + (24 x 4) > 400w which is all I have for HPS...

Looks like you missed something.
Click to expand...

  • So. This time I have...

    4x 24w T5s
    2x 125w CFLs
    1x 400w HPS

    Sorry, it waspretty stupid of me to think that your OP was anything but nonsense.

    So tell me, whatareyou flowering with?

    And are you aware that growers base things on actual wattage, not equivalent wattage? Equivalent means nothing, or do you genuinely think you have thousands if watts of usable cfl lighting? There is quite a scientific reason behind why people who are actually serious about growing use hps/mh instead of cfl..​


 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
tip top toker said:



  • Sorry, it waspretty stupid of me to think that your OP was anything but nonsense.
    ​
Click to expand...
You mean sorry that you didn't read further than the first post before making a judgement statement. I forgive you.

Go ahead and try reading the thread to learn what I am going to flower with.
 
tip top toker

tip top toker

Well-Known Member
Finshaggy said:
You mean sorry that you didn't read further than the first post before making a judgement statement. I forgive you.

Go ahead and try reading the thread to learn what I am going to flower with.
Click to expand...
It was rhetoric ;)

Reading the rest of the thread would have shown me that you think you have 1000's of watts of lighting because you think that with cfl's growers work off of the equivalent wattage. You really don't have a clue. It's rather sad. 5 minutes of reading and you'd educate yourself no end, but rather you think you know everything and refuse to better your understanding with actual knowledge.

You have a 125w cfl, nothing about it being a cfl makes it a 1000w light. It is a 125w light. Can you understand this concept? Again, why do you think anyone serious about growing uses hps or mh instead of cfls? Keep telling yourself that you have a 7:1 ratio of cfl lighting to hps lighting because of your multiplier theory :lol:
 
Nizza

Nizza

Well-Known Member
i always thought it said the equivalent as saying how it will produce as much light as an old "125 w light bulb" being an incandescent with way less lumens.
so a you would need 1000w' of incandecenct to match the 125w cfl or whatever if you were talking lumens.
as far as t5 goes i like those a lot more than cfls, i find they're more professional and easier to manage. Once in awhile i'm force to dig out a few cfls and add em in, but eventually cfl's i think will be something barely used

as far as comparison CFL to HPS, i believe watt per watt, HPS is favored for the fact it has more penetration. If you want to use CFLS you have to get them all within like 4-6" of the plant because they do 1 foot of canopy penetration maximum
f
my buddy about matched me on yield a HPS grow doing CFLS only, but he did from ceed with a big pot and i was doing sog with no veg, so GPW/time was different, i had a lot less time (~1 month)
 
tip top toker

tip top toker

Well-Known Member
A 125w cfl is a 125w cfl. Otherwise you could argue that a 125w hps can be called say a 1000w hps because of the "equivalent to" factor, but it's not, a 125w hps is a 125w hps.
 
SunnyJim

SunnyJim

Well-Known Member
tip top toker said:

  • And are you aware that growers base things on actual wattage, not equivalent wattage? Equivalent means nothing, or do you genuinely think you have thousands if watts of usable cfl lighting? There is quite a scientific reason behind why people who are actually serious about growing use hps/mh instead of cfl..​
Click to expand...
  • ​

I'm just going to gently wade in and agree in principle with tip top toker. Equivalent watts not only mean nothing in terms of growing potential, they are in fact totally misleading. They are figures conjured up by the bulb manufacturers in order to indicate the amount of watts an incandescent bulb would need to draw in order to emit a similar amount of 'light'. This doesn't take into account heat output or spectrums, and is therefore fairly irrelevant to growers.

It would be like wanting to know that your 15w cfl 2700k bulb was equivalent to 150 flash lights, or 300 candlesticks. Because we aren't interested in using either flash lights or candles to cultivate a plant, the 'equivalent' amount is meaningless, imo. Instead, what we do know for sure is that the 15w cfl 2700k is exactly that, and the general consensus is that growers should be using a minimum of 100w of 2700k cfls in order to flower a single plant. I feel it's much easier to compare and contrast results when we're all following the same lighting standards.

For the record, I also don't think it's wise to compare cfl watts with HPS/MH lighting. Both types of lighting require slightly different growing techniques in order to achieve maximum potential. CFL growers tend to use cfls for a reason (space and/or cooling constraints, and budget, usually..), so the suggestion that cfl growers should dump their bulbs and get an HPS setup is moot. We can all agree that HPS systems produce the highest yields, watt for watt, but not all growers (especially hobby growers) need to be drawing 400 watts and cooling an HID bulb in order to grow a single plant.

My two cents, carry on fighting.
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
Nizza said:
i always thought it said the equivalent as saying how it will produce as much light as an old "125 w light bulb" being an incandescent with way less lumens.
so a you would need 1000w' of incandecenct to match the 125w cfl or whatever if you were talking lumens.
as far as t5 goes i like those a lot more than cfls, i find they're more professional and easier to manage. Once in awhile i'm force to dig out a few cfls and add em in, but eventually cfl's i think will be something barely used

as far as comparison CFL to HPS, i believe watt per watt, HPS is favored for the fact it has more penetration. If you want to use CFLS you have to get them all within like 4-6" of the plant because they do 1 foot of canopy penetration maximum
f
my buddy about matched me on yield a HPS grow doing CFLS only, but he did from ceed with a big pot and i was doing sog with no veg, so GPW/time was different, i had a lot less time (~1 month)
Click to expand...
Yeah, most people that get the 125w CFL that I have call it a 1000w light

And HPS does have better penetration, that's why I did not add the multiplier myself and am counting the base wattage. I am not sure how it compares directly to HPS as far as wattage.
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
I never included a multiplier and I'm not fighting with anyone (I am just telling tip top how reading works). Ya'll need to stop jumping the gun.

SunnyJim said:
[/FONT][/COLOR][/INDENT][/FONT][/COLOR]
[/LIST]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
I'm just going to gently wade in and agree in principle with tip top toker. Equivalent watts not only mean nothing in terms of growing potential, they are in fact totally misleading. They are figures conjured up by the bulb manufacturers in order to indicate the amount of watts an incandescent bulb would need to draw in order to emit a similar amount of 'light'. This doesn't take into account heat output or spectrums, and is therefore fairly irrelevant to growers.

It would be like wanting to know that your 15w cfl 2700k bulb was equivalent to 150 flash lights, or 300 candlesticks. Because we aren't interested in using either flash lights or candles to cultivate a plant, the 'equivalent' amount is meaningless, imo. Instead, what we do know for sure is that the 15w cfl 2700k is exactly that, and the general consensus is that growers should be using a minimum of 100w of 2700k cfls in order to flower a single plant. I feel it's much easier to compare and contrast results when we're all following the same lighting standards.

For the record, I also don't think it's wise to compare cfl watts with HPS/MH lighting. Both types of lighting require slightly different growing techniques in order to achieve maximum potential. CFL growers tend to use cfls for a reason (space and/or cooling constraints, and budget, usually..), so the suggestion that cfl growers should dump their bulbs and get an HPS setup is moot. We can all agree that HPS systems produce the highest yields, watt for watt, but not all growers (especially hobby growers) need to be drawing 400 watts and cooling an HID bulb in order to grow a single plant.

My two cents, carry on fighting.
Click to expand...
 
unkle mouse

unkle mouse

Active Member
thank you.. will be looking it up,, until summer, swamp cooler house, big time ventilation then.. heat build up is a problem
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
Finshaggy said:
I did a stress test (started out as just taking a clone, and turned into a stress test) and it turned out REALLY well.
[video=youtube;CKZi7hARF80]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKZi7hARF80[/video]
Click to expand...
I am about to post an update with like a 360 of the plant, but I want to tell you what I was about to say at the end of this video before it cut me off.

I was about to say that because of the plant falling over on it's side and the side of the plant becoming the top of the plant, while the top of the plant still remained string... Now I have what SCROG growers want when they grow. A plant that has multiple main colas, so it will make for a good yield.
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
3 weeks is the longest I am waiting, but most of this growth happened in like 8 days. So flower will probably be really soon.
[video=youtube;V5TTKDWO-dg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5TTKDWO-dg[/video]
 
SunnyJim

SunnyJim

Well-Known Member
Looks pretty good, if not a touch pale. Nitrogen deficient, possibly? The canopy looks even, too, which is encouraging. Bear in mind that it will triple in size during flower, so plan for having sufficient space to house a plant 3x the size it is today. I can see a good few tops, so you're right - it has the makings of a decent yield.

Are you LSTing, or do you plan to if necessary during flower? It's a really great technique for CFL growers with most of the light coming from the top down.

Re: Equivalent watts: Sorry, I'm not trying to stoke the fire, I just wanted to share my thoughts on why equivalent watts mean little to me, and (I suspect) to most CFL growers. Since this is a CFL subforum, I thought it might be helpful to chime in with those thoughts.

Peace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top